review of ips police department operations and activities

Indianapolis Public Schools

Review of IPS Police DepartmentOperations andActivitiesA research partnership between the Indianapolis Public Schools and the Indiana University Public Policy Institute

Indiana University Public Policy InstituteThe Indiana University Public Policy Institute is a collaborative, multidisciplinary, unbiased research institute within the Indiana University School ofPublic and Environmental Affairs (SPEA). The Institute serves as an umbrella organization for research centers affiliated with SPEA, including theCenter for Urban Policy and the Environment, and the Center for Criminal Justice Research. The Institute also supports the Indiana AdvisoryCommission on Intergovernmental Relations (IACIR).

February 2016 • ISSUE 16-C02

© 2016 Indiana University Public Policy Institute School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis334 N. Senate, Suite 300Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

Table of ContentsIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Overview of IPS Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Budget and personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Mission, goals, and standard operating procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Case log data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Investigations data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Arrest and use of force data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Key informant interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Conclusions and recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Appendix A: Interview Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Appendix B: Citizens' Police Complaint Office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

AuthorsDONA SAPP, senior policy analyst, Indiana University Public Policy Institute

RACHEL THELIN, senior policy analyst, Indiana University Public Policy Institute

1

INTRODUCTIONThe Indiana University Public Policy Institute (PPI) at IUPUI has a longhistory of partnering with state and local criminal justice and public safe-ty organizations to address critical issues including: crime prevention; drugand alcohol abuse associated with crime; law enforcement; sentencing and cor-rections; and traffic safety. In the fall of 2015, Indianapolis Public Schools(IPS) requested the assistance of PPI in conducting a review of IPS PoliceDepartment (IPS PD) operations. The purpose of this study is to gain abetter understanding of the types of activities performed by IPS PD per-sonnel and to identify opportunities for internal and external collabora-tions related to IPS PD duties and responsibilities. It is important to notethat this study is not intended to be a comprehensive evaluation of theIPS Police Department, but rather it is meant to provide a broadoverview of IPS PD efforts and the allocation of resources within thedepartment. This report summarizes project research findings related tothe following tasks: 1) a review of existing literature on school-basedpolice officers and police departments, 2) analyses of IPS data setsincluding IPS PD budget and personnel, cases and incident reports,investigations, arrests, and use of force reports, and 3) key informantinterviews with IPS officers.

OVERVIEW OF IPS POLICE DEPARTMENTAccording to a document provided by the IPS PD, an internal policeforce has been a part of IPS since the 1940s, but were originally an arm ofthe Public Safety Division. In 2007, the IPS Board of CommissionersEstablished the IPS PD as a separate, fully trained law enforcement entitywithin IPS, and a memorandum of understanding was entered into withthe Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) to clearlydefine issues of jurisdiction and investigations.

A primary role of the IPS PD is to assist school administrators in provid-ing a safe educational and work environment in which students, staff,and members of the community feel secure and are able to focus onteaching and learning. According to IPS PD, all officers are required tocomplete the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) basic trainingcourse within one year of hire, mandatory firearms training, and are alsooffered a series of other mandatory and optional training opportunitiesthroughout the year. Officers are equipped with a firearm and are alsotrained in the use of other tools that may be required in the event thatuse of force becomes necessary to protect the safety of students, staff,and visitors to IPS facilities.

METHODOLOGYAs well as a review of existing literature on school-based policing pro-grams, PPI spent significant time gathering additional information anddata needed to complete this study. Data and supplemental documenta-tion were provided by IPS Operations, IPS PD, and other external partieswithin IMPD and the City of Indianapolis. These data (primarily coveringthe years 2013 to 2015) were then analyzed and synthesized and incor-porated into the final report. Additionally, PPI conducted a set of keyinformant interviews described in more detail below. As is always thecase, prior to initiating any investigative activities, PPI contacted the uni-versity human subjects research office to ensure that all research wasconducted in compliance with university policy.

Key informant interviewsPPI researchers developed key informant interview questionnaires (seeAppendix A – Interview Questionnaires) and shared with intervieweesprior to conducting the interview. The questionnaires covered the follow-ing topics:

• Mission and goals of IPS PD

• Budgetary issues related to IPS PD operations

• Internal and external political environmental

• Perceptions of the primary role and responsibilities of schoolpolice officers

• Type and frequency of school personnel interaction with IPSpolice officers

• Perceptions of impact of IPS PD presence on overall school cli-mate

• Accessibility to and adequacy of training and equipment providedto officers

• Accessibility to IPS PD data and linkages with school data regard-ing potential criminal activity, attendance, academic performance,and disciplinary records

• Strengths and weaknesses of the IPS PD efforts and operations

Contacts within the IPS Operations Division identified a number ofadministrative personnel in the Operations Division as well as severalIPS PD administrators and officers for PPI to contact and interview fortheir knowledge and experience with IPS PD operations and activities.PPI conducted key informant interviews with the following:

• Deputy Superintendent of Operations

• 2 Operations professional staff

• IPS Chief of Police

• 5 IPS police officers (varying ranks including Sergeant andCaptain)

2

LITERATURE REVIEWBackgroundLaw enforcement has a history of serving schools. Generally, this hasincluded traditional patrols, responding to calls for service, and criminalinvestigations of offenses involving youth. In the 1980s and 1990s,assigning law enforcement officers to schools expanded with the risinginvolvement of juveniles in crime and a shift to “zero tolerance” disci-pline policies. In the late 1990’s, federal funding for community orientedpolicing (COPs) and high profile school shootings contributed to theincreased use of law enforcement in schools.

In practice, there is not one uniform definition of how law enforcementoperates in schools, but there are some common characteristics. SchoolResource Officers (SROs) are typically sworn law enforcement officersselected and trained to promote safety within an assigned school orgroup of schools. SROs typically are employed by law enforcementagencies (local police or sheriff’s departments). Some notable excep-tions to this rule include the Los Angeles Unified School District, theHouston Independent School District, and the School District ofPhiladelphia, all of which have internal police departments independ-ent of local law enforcement agencies, similar to that of theIndianapolis Public Schools. Broadly, the reported benefits of SRO pro-grams include the following:

• Preventing crime and violence in schools by increasing the likeli-hood that students report witnessing a crime

• Establishing a safe and secure school environment by increasingfeelings of safety among students, teachers, and administrators

• Deterring aggressive behavior and reducing time spent on behav-ioral disruptions and discipline

• Connecting at-risk students to required services

• Diverting youth from the juvenile justice system

SRO roles and responsibilities A 2014 Minnesota survey found that SROs report satisfaction with theirroles about specific aspects of the job, including the following:

• Enjoy working with youth and school staff

• Enjoy opportunity to teach others

• Rewarding and valuable law enforcement position

• Like the shift/schedule SROs work

• Like school environment (Swayze & Buskovick, 2014)

School resource officers typically fill a number of roles and are responsi-ble for a range of duties. The following bulleted lists of responsibilitiesthat fall under the roles of educator, informal counselor, and law enforcer,are excerpted from School Resource Officers: Steps to effective school-basedlaw enforcement (Thomas et al., 2013).

As educators, SROs teach students and staff about safety and violenceprevention. SROs are responsible for the following:

• Teaching school staff about crime and justice issues and trainingon crisis prevention and intervention

• Educating students about bullying prevention, gang awarenessand resistance, substance abuse, conflict resolution, and prevent-ing youth-relevant crimes such as shoplifting, vandalism, and sex-ual assault by acquaintances

• Advising on emergency preparedness and crisis and incident man-agement—informing crisis planning and management systems,developing and coordinating emergency response plans, creatingprotocols for handling specific emergencies

• Crime prevention—advising administrators on decreasing risksthrough environmental design

• Teaching parents and community—present information on crimeand justice issues, e.g., signs of youth substance abuse and ganginvolvement

In the role of informal counselors, SRO’s positive relationship with stu-dents are key to success. SROs are able to engage with students in thefollowing ways:

• Mentoring youth about appropriate and respectful behavior

• Building trust and foster relationships with students through for-mal and informal interactions

• Intervening in escalating situations

• Referring students to appropriate resources (e.g., behavioral sci-ences within and outside of schools and mental health service)and diverting them from the juvenile justice system

As law enforcers, SROs are responsible for serving:

• As community information liaisons and interpreting law enforce-ment policies and procedures

• As safety experts who possess specific training that school admin-istrators lack related to responding to possible threats

• In traditional law enforcement roles by

o Patrolling school property

o Investigating delinquent complaints

o Assisting with school discipline

o Responding to on-campus calls, emergencies, or tres-passers, and to off-campus crimes involving students

o Conducting criminal investigations and sharing informationwith investigation units

o Serving as truancy and security enforcers

o Issuing citations and making arrests as needed

3

When SROs become engaged in handling disciplinary matters, there areconcerns that this involvement may result in criminalizing studentbehavior—where students are arrested and introduced to the juvenilejustice system for relatively minor behaviors that historically have beenhandled by school administrators and teachers. This can sometimes neg-atively affect school climate and compromise youth civil rights where ajustice response criminalizes certain youth behaviors (Theriot, 2013).

Research and data collectionDespite widespread use of SROs, there are few available studies thathave reliably evaluated their effectiveness. Research should comparegoals of a specific program with outcomes to assess program efficacy. Inthe case of SROs, benefits of law enforcement presence schools includes:

• Increased safety in and around the schools

• Increased perceptions of safety

• Improved police call response times

• Reductions in truancy

• Fewer distractions from teaching and class preparation duties.(Finn et al., 2005)

Outcome-focused research can help establish whether SROs are effectivein reducing disorder and crime—do they make schools safe? Types ofkey information and data (also outlined in Table 1) include the following:

• School data—incident reports, disciplinary reports and referrals,and suspension and attendance records

• Law enforcement data—field contacts, calls for service, and crimeand arrest reports

• Student, school staff, and parent surveys

• Community crime and violence data

• Comparison with other, similar schools (Raymond, 2010)

Elements of successful SRO programsOften SROs are required to play dual roles, navigating differing lawenforcement and school cultures, where police are focused on crime andpublic safety and schools on education. Differing perspectives on schoolsafety and operational obstacles can impede the success of SRO program.Elements of strong SRO programs that can be found in the literature(excerpted from School Resource Officers: Steps to effective school-based lawenforcement (Thomas et al., 2013) and Law Enforcement in MinnesotaSchools: A Statewide Survey of School Resource Officer (Swayze &Buskovick, 2014) include the following:

• Proper selection of officers

o It is critical to select officers motivated and willing to meetunique challenges of working in schools with youth andeducators. Recommended practices do not support assign-ing SROs who are not interested in school-based lawenforcement.

o Law enforcement experience and training should be anappropriate fit for navigating dual roles.

Table 1. Safety problems effectively addressed by SROs and related performance metrics

Source: Raymond, 2010 (table extracted)

Goal of program Data that may help measure progress

Reduce crime and disorder in and around school • Crime incidents in school (e.g., fights, bullying, etc.)

• Non-criminal disorder incidents in school

• Non-criminal disorder incidents in vicinity of school

• Victimization in school and vicinity of school

Develop positive relationships with students, parents, and staff • Number of students advised; nature of counseling

• Parent and child counseling sessions

• Perceptions of relationships among students, police officers, school staff, parents,

Relieve school-related workload on patrol officers • Police calls for service

• Investigations, leads, clearances

• Referrals to other agencies

• Perceptions of patrol officers

Improve school attendance • Truancy rates

Improve student productivity • Student levels of fear

• Student academic performance

Prevent violence in and around school • Number and severity of violent crime incidents

Improve overall school performance • Graduation rates

• Academic proficiency

• Delinquency rate

• Severe discipline rate

4

o To minimize SRO turnover, SROs assigned from traditionallaw enforcement agencies should continue to be integratedwith local law enforcement department. This can discouragefrequent transitions in SROs.

• Comprehensive, multifaceted training of officers

o SROs need to be well-trained to prepare them for workingeffectively with youth in schools.

o Traditional police training often does not provide ade-

quate instruction on topics relevant to school-based law

enforcement. Basic SRO training includes how to teach,mentor, counsel students, and work collaboratively withadministrators and staff, and adhere to juvenile justice andprivacy laws; students’ rights; educational settings, juvenilelaw, special education laws.

o Lack of specialized training results in SROs ill-equipped tofulfill key roles. Specialized areas include training on a vari-ety of subjects, including adolescent development and com-munication, mental health, implicit bias and cultural com-petence, trauma-informed care, and de-escalation tech-niques.

• SROs and school administrators need to have a clear understand-ing of their respective roles and responsibilities and to regularlyreview these.

• Resolving funding issues can ensure program sustainability. Forprograms to succeed, school districts and local police departmentsmust be able to find the necessary resources to support SRO pro-grams. According to a 2010 report, the average cost of assigning asworn officer to a school, while varying by jurisdiction, is substan-tial. “Under the COPS Office grant program, each “cop in school”was funded at $125,000 in salaries and benefits over a three-yearperiod” (Raymond, 2010).

SRO program governanceIt is essential to establish written governing and operating protocols inthe form of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between theschool district and partner law enforcement agency (internal, external, orboth). Such interagency agreements help specify agency roles and estab-lish clear expectations for all parties involved. Such agreements areimportant to 1) support goals of a school safety team; 2) to prevent roleconflict between parties; and 3) to address legal issues that may ariseduring interagency collaboration (Thomas et al., 2013).

MOU’s can prevent confusion among SROs and staff, minimize conflictsbetween agencies, and avert problems with program implementation. Anexample of such an MOU is between Denver Public Schools and the DenverPolice Department and a Summary of 2013 Intergovernmental Agreementbetween DPS and DPD.

According to Swayze and Buskovick, the federal COPS Office recom-mends addressing the following in such agreements:

• Time and resource commitments expected from each agency;

• Specific objectives of the partnerships with clearly defined targets;

• Guidelines for information and data exchange;

• Child protection policies;

• Management and accountability framework; and,

• Strategies for working with outside agencies that provide servicesto youth (2014).

Thomas et al., in School Resource Officers: Steps to effective school-based lawenforcement (2013) outline specific elements that MOUs should address,as follows:

• Define the school-law enforcement partnership and delineate pro-gram mission and goals;

• Should be created through a collaborative process that includeskey stakeholders (education, law enforcement, and wider commu-nity);

• A clear mission that defines the SRO program’s overarching pur-pose;

• Specific goals and objectives that outline purpose, expected out-comes, informed by identified issues impacting school safety;

• Well-defined SRO roles and responsibilities related to discipline,teaching, crisis situations, and truancy;

• Level and type of commitment from partners and specified alloca-tion of funding and resources;

• Governance structure that outlines leadership team, chain of com-mand, decision-making process, lines of communication acrossagencies, SRO supervision and accountability;

• Process for selecting SROs and how school administrators and lawenforcement will be involved;

• Minimum training requirements for SROs that describe pre- andin-service training content and training funding sources;

• Information exchange that outlines a process by which partnersgather and share information;

• Program and SRO evaluation with clear measures of success andevaluation;

• Student rights related to a safe school environment, police searchand seizure, and use of force;

• Description of how SROS will be incorporated into school envi-ronment and existing school-based prevention and promotionefforts; and,

• Transparency and accountability measures that clarify collectionand public sharing of data related to SRO programming (numbers

5

of SROs and law enforcement interventions) and outline plans toshare information about arrests, use of force, and school-wide dis-ciplinary actions by SROs with school staff and parents.

The authors also provide a list of standard operating procedure compo-nents that may be incorporated into MOUs (Thomas et al., 2013). Hisexcerpted list covers guidance about daily operations, policies, and proce-dures, as follows:

• School discipline versus legal processing—delineates offenses thatrequire legal referral versus use of traditional school discipline pro-cedures and gray areas (e.g., harassment, fighting, vandalism)

• “Chain of command”—delineates whom SROs report to, howschool administrators and officers collaborate to address incidents,and procedures for addressing disagreements between administra-tors and SROs

• Arresting students and “use of force”

o Delineates when arrest or restraint of students or taking stu-dents in custody is appropriate

o Defines procedures for arresting students, including whomshould be consulted and when and where arrests shouldoccur

• Communication and collaboration—that encourages dialogue anda strong relationship between schools and law enforcement

o Defines when SROs will communicate with school staff andlaw enforcement about critical issues, such as at-risk stu-dents and ongoing investigations

o Meetings SROs should attend (PTA/PTO, school boardmeetings, faculty meetings)

o Outlines SRO integration into educational teams

• Searching and questioning students

o When and how SROs can search and question students andwhether administrators and/or parents need to be madeaware prior to such searches

o Limitations of SRO searches among the student population

BUDGET AND PERSONNEL According to information provided by the IPS Operations Division, thetotal IPS PD budget for the year 2014 was $4.49 million, a 2 percentdecrease from 2013 and an 8 percent decrease since 2011. In 2015, theaverage IPS PD sergeant salary is $47,420, and the average IPS policeofficer salary is $42,325. Currently, IPS police sergeants have a combined240 years of service to the district, with an average of 17 years of serviceper sergeant. IPS police officers have a combined 458 years of service,with an average of 11 years of service per officer.

Presently, the primary positions that exist in the IPS PD include officersand dispatchers. According to the IPS PD, school police officers:

Will assist school administrators in providing a safe educational andworking environment…will do this by adding value to school safetyand crime prevention initiatives, and by enforcing school policies, aswell as criminal statutes.

In addition to other requirements, candidates for school police officerpositions must pass the following to be considered eligible:

• Preliminary Application

• Written Examination

• Oral Interview

• Background Investigation

• Psychological Examination

• Physical Agility Test

• Medical Examination

• Drug Screening

• And must also successfully complete the Indiana LawEnforcement Academy basic course within one year of hire

According to the official IPS PD dispatcher job description provided bythe Operations Division, a police dispatcher:

Initiates and receives telephone and radio calls of emergency andnon-emergency nature, obtains and provides information necessary toevaluate the situation, determines appropriate response: respondsexpeditiously and appropriately to callers, refers questionable situa-tions to the shift sergeant or OIC for decision, and maintains accu-rate and legible communication notes and records.

Table 2. IPS Police Personnel, by Job Classification, 2015

Job Classification Count % of Total

School Police Officer 41 60.3%

School Police Sergeant 14 20.6%

Dispatcher - Part Time 6 8.8%

Dispatcher (12 month) 5 7.4%

Executive Assistant 1 1.5%

Officer (10 month) 1 1.5%

Total 68 100.0%

Source: Indianapolis Public Schools, current as of December 8, 2015

6


Excluding the IPS Police Chief and the ranks of captain, as of December 2015, the IPS PDemployed 68 employees in both full- and part-time positions including sergeant, officer, dis-patcher, and executive assistant (see Table 2). Based on the race/ethnicity data provided by IPS,nearly 62 percent of all IPS PD personnel are black, while 37 percent are white and less than 2percent are Hispanic (Table 3). Nearly 80 percent of IPS police sergeants are black, and 54 per-cent of officers are black, while 44 percent of officers are white and less than 3 percent areHispanic. More than 35 percent of all IPS PD personnel are women, and 21 percent of IPS PDsergeants are women.

Figure 1 shows that 49 percent of IPS PD sergeants and officers are between the ages of 40 and49, and 25 percent are in the 50 to 59 age group. Only 7 percent of sergeants and officers arebetween the ages of 20 and 29.

MISSION, GOALS, AND STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES The IPS PD has built a strong framework of operations that addresses many of the best practicesidentified in the literature review of school policing programs included in this report, including aclearly defined mission, set of goals, and standard operating procedures (see text box for list ofIPS PD procedures). The IPS PD also has entered into a long-term memorandum of under-standing with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (IMPD) to clearly define issuesof jurisdiction and investigations.

The IPS PD also provides a system of data collection and reporting in a variety of areas includingcase/incident reports, investigations, arrests, and use of force reports (discussed in more detail inthe following sections).

List of Current IPS Police Department Standard Operation ProceduresEffect, Issue, and Distribution

Police Powers, Jurisdiction, & Authority

Uniform and Grooming

Department Vehicles

Lost Child

Routine and Special Metal Detection/Search

Notification of IPS Administration

Appearance in Court and Hearings

Transportation of Prisoners

IPS Investigations

Fire Investigations

Sexual Crimes Investigations

IPS and Interact Reports

Oleoresin Capsicum Spray

Expandable tactical baton (manufactured by Armament Systems and Procedures, Inc. (ASP)

Body Armor

Use of Force

Firearms

Post-Shooting Incident

Firearms and Use of Force Review Board

Firearms Training and Qualifications

Lost or Stolen Firearms or Other Weapons

Restorative Justice Family Conferences

Uniform Traffic Ticket Procedures

MECA Radios

Daily Call-ins and Workplace Attendance

Compliments and Complaints

Chain of Custody and Evidence Tracking

Building Checks and Response to Building Alarms

Probationary Officer Training

Honor Awards

Source: Guidebook for School Police DepartmentEmployees, Indianapolis Public Schools, August 2015

Table 3. IPS Police Employees, by Job Classification, Gender, and Race

Gender Race as % of totalJob Classification/Race Male Female Total

All personnel 44 24 68 100.0%Black 26 16 42 61.8%Hispanic 0 1 1 1.5%White 18 7 25 36.8%

Gender as % of total 64.7% 35.3% 100.0%

School police sergeants 11 3 14 100.0%Black 8 3 11 78.6%Hispanic 0 0 0 0.0%White 3 0 3 21.4%


School police officers 31 10 41 100.0%Black 16 6 22 53.7%Hispanic 0 1 1 2.4%White 15 3 18 43.9%


Dispatchers 2 9 11 100.0%Black 2 6 8 72.7%Hispanic 0 0 0 0.0%White 0 3 3 27.3%


7 Source: Indianapolis Public Schools, current as of December 8, 2015

Figure 1. IPS Police Sergeants and Officers, by Age Group, 2015


4

7

27

14

3

60 to 69years

6%

20 to 29years

7%

30 to 39 years

13%

40 to 49 years

49%

50 to 59 years

25%

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20 to 29 years

30 to 39 years

40 to 49 years

50 to 59 years

60 to 69 years

n = 55 sergeants and police officers

CASE LOG DATABetween 2013 and 2015, the total number ofcases reported by IPS dispatchers decreased 15percent from 27,455 in 2013 to 23,306 in 2015(Figure 2). An estimated 71 percent of theseincidents were duties typically performed byschool resource officers, while 27 percent of inci-dents were categorized as maintenance and 2percent were considered administrative innature (Figure 3). It is important to note that,

due to the fact that many officers are

assigned full-time to specific school loca-

tions, many contributions and services pro-

vided on a daily basis will not be represent-

ed in the case log data. In 2015, incidentsreports as codes accounted for 27 percent of allcases, and building checks accounted for nearly20 percent of all cases (Table 4). Alarms (6percent) and various types of disturbances (4percent) also accounted for a large number ofcases. Due to inconsistent coding of incidenttypes in the data provided, some categoriesmay be underrepresented and have beenplaced in the other category. The IPS PD hasidentified 60 codes for use by dispatchers indetermining incident types to be recorded inthe case log database; however, PPIresearchers identified 564 individual incidentcodes in the case log data, some due to typosor inconsistent abbreviations or spellings, indi-cating that dispatchers are sometimes manual-ly entering incident descriptions as opposed toselecting from a predefined list of menuoptions.

8

Figure 2. IPS Police Cases, 2013-2015

Source: IPS Police Department Case Log Data, current as of January 2016

Figure 3. IPS Police Cases, by Task/Duty Type, 2013-2015


Note: School Resource Officer indicates duties typically performed by school resource officers specifically related tocrime or public safety incidents or events occurring in or around a school.

28,000

24,000

20,000

16,000

12,000

8,000

4,000

-

27,455

25,246

23,306

2013 2014 2015

Administrative2%

Maintenance27%

School Resource Officer71%

9

Table 4. IPS Police Cases by Incident Type, 2013-2015


Note: The IPS Police Department has identified 60 codes for use by dispatchers in determining incident types to be recorded in the case log database; however, researchers identi-fied 564 individual incident codes in the case log data, indicating that dispatchers are sometimes manually entering incident descriptions as opposed to selecting from apredetermined list of menu options. Due to the wide variation in manually entered codes, most of these incidents have been placed in the Other category.

Counts of cases/incidents Percent of annual total

Incident type 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

Codes (temperature checks) 6,320 6,618 6,179 23.0% 26.2% 26.5%

Building check (inside/perimeter) 8,487 6,199 4,617 30.9% 24.6% 19.8%

Detail (officer sent to a location to complete a task) 1,842 2,909 3,604 6.7% 11.5% 15.5%

Alarm 1,376 1,352 1,490 5.0% 5.4% 6.4%

Disturbance 1,016 948 1,021 3.7% 3.8% 4.4%

Investigation 1,263 1,091 706 4.6% 4.3% 3.0%

School visit 1,096 1,144 678 4.0% 4.5% 2.9%

Assist (officer sent to help a school or another officer) 460 443 493 1.7% 1.8% 2.1%

Traffic incident (stops, accidents) 433 465 465 1.6% 1.8% 2.0%

Mark out (a self-initiated stop to complete a task) 248 365 455 0.9% 1.4% 2.0%

Transport 1,228 672 428 4.5% 2.7% 1.8%

Property drop off/pick Up 377 259 309 1.4% 1.0% 1.3%

Bus check (lot/stop) 279 294 221 1.0% 1.2% 0.9%

Meeting 119 138 210 0.4% 0.5% 0.9%

Lost or stolen property/theft/recovery 264 204 188 1.0% 0.8% 0.8%

Sick or injured (student or staff) 158 202 180 0.6% 0.8% 0.8%

Missing person/runaway 154 168 165 0.6% 0.7% 0.7%

Relief 66 96 162 0.2% 0.4% 0.7%

Fire (alarm/investigation) 2 22 152 0.0% 0.1% 0.7%

Dismissal 348 127 144 1.3% 0.5% 0.6%

Maintenance 150 156 143 0.5% 0.6% 0.6%

Report writing 192 149 125 0.7% 0.6% 0.5%

Notification (informing a parent of school action) 101 56 115 0.4% 0.2% 0.5%

Drugs (possession/found) 141 172 109 0.5% 0.7% 0.5%

Vandalism 72 75 74 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

Arrest/immediate detention/warrant 142 115 71 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%

Information report 146 114 65 0.5% 0.5% 0.3%

Assault/battery 107 81 63 0.4% 0.3% 0.3%

Metal detection 81 20 35 0.3% 0.1% 0.2%

Sexual misconduct/assault 4 10 9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Weapons possession 3 8 8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Board meetings 22 27 4 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

Other 758 547 618 2.8% 2.2% 2.7%

Total 27,455 25,246 23,306 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

10

Figure 4 shows the largest number of reported IPS PD day-time (6am to5:59pm) cases per month between 2013 and 2015 occurred inSeptember (5,525). The lowest number of day-time cases per monthduring this same time period occurred in June (3,941). The largestnumber of reported night-time (6pm to 5:59am) cases per monthoccurred in August (3,627). On average, monthly counts of day-timecases are higher than counts of night-time cases. Average monthly day-

time cases between 2013 and 2015 were 4,691 compared to an averageof 2,791 for night-time cases.

Figure 5 illustrates the highest number of reported IPS PD day-timecases per day of week between 2013 and 2015 occurred on Saturday(9,398) and Sunday (9,333), while the lowest number of day-time casesper day of week during this same time period occurred on Friday(6,580) and Monday (6,969). The largest number of reported night-time

Figure 4. IPS Police Cases, by Month and Time of Day, 2013-2015


Note: Day is defined as 6am - 5:59pm. Night is defined as 6pm - 5:59am.

Total cases - Day Total cases - Night

Monthly average - Day Monthly average - Night6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

4,691

5,525

3,627

2,791

Figure 5. IPS Police Cases, by Day of Week and Time of Day, 2013-2015

Total cases - Day Total cases - NightDaily average - Day Daily average - Night

10,000

9,000

8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

8,041

9,398

6,016

4,784

11

(6pm to 5:59am) cases per day of week occurred on Thursday (6,016). Onaverage, day of week counts of day-time cases are higher than counts ofnight-time cases. Average day of week day-time cases between 2013 and2015 were 8,041 compared to an average of 4,784 for night-time cases.

When looking at IPS PD cases by hour or time of day (Figure 6), thenumber of reported cases appear peak during early morning (between8am and 10am) and late afternoon hours (between 2pm and 4pm) of theschool day, as well as late overnight hours (between 10pm and 1am).


Figure 6. IPS Police Cases, by Hour of Day, 2013-2015

6,500

6,000

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

Nu

mb

er o

f ca

ses

Time of day

12am 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12pm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

INVESTIGATIONS DATA Figure 7 provides a list of IPS PD investigations between 2013 and 2015,by type of incident investigated. Note that 2015 data only included inves-tigations reported through July 2015. Assault, internal, and threat assess-ments were among the incident types most frequently investigated acrossall three years of data analyzed. Internal investigations inclue potentialIPS employee and IPS police policy violations.

ARRESTS AND USE OF FORCEArrest data provided by the IPS PD indicates more than 200 arrestsoccurred during the 2014-2015 school year. The IPS PD began trackinguse of force reports in a database late last school year. To date, 16 use offorce reports have been generated by the IPS PD during the 2015-2016school year.

The IPS PD standard operating procedurerelated to IPS reports states:

IPS reports will be generated concerning allincidents that require written documenta-tion that occur within our jurisdiction(examples might include reported crimes,damage to IPS property or persons or any-time an InterAct IMPD incident report hasbeen generated).

The IPS PD standard operating procedurerelated to IMPD InterAct reports instructs offi-cers to:

generate InterAct reports concerning allarrests, injuries, thefts, burglaries or anyincident of a serious nature. A report alsomust be written when an incident occurswithin the school system that IPS or anyother law enforcement agency may need tofurther investigate.

The IPS PD standard operating procedurerelated to Use of Force states:

Department members shall not use moreforce in any situation than is reasonablynecessary under the circumstances to effec-tively bring an incident under control.

12

Source: IPS Police Department Investigations Data, provided December 2015

Notes:1) 2014-2015 investigations reports do not include a full year and include only investigations started through July 1,2015.2) Internal investigations include potential IPS employee and IPS police policy violations. 3) Firearms investigation locations for 2013-2014 included Northwest High School (4), Arsenal Tech (1), #48 (1), SCIPS (1). Investigation locations for 2014-2015 included John Marshall (1) and #94 (1).

Figure 7. IPS Police Investigation Reports, by Incident Type, 2013-2015

Incident type 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Arson 2 2 7

Assault 16 14 17

Auto theft 4 0 0

Bullying/Intimidation 5 3 2

Burglary 6 4 0

CPS 0 0 1

Criminal confinement 0 0 1

Disturbances 3 10 5

Explosives 2 3 0

False report 0 0 1

Felony screening cases 7 4 2

Firearms 0 7 2

Fraud 2 0 1

Hit and run 2 0 0

Internal 22 21 25

Larceny 24 9 4

Missing person 0 2 0

Narcotics 4 0 0

Recovered property/Computrace 11 12 3

Robbery 4 1 2

Sexting/Cyber crimes 3 0 1

Sexual assaults 12 8 7

Stolen vehicle 0 2 0

Threat assessments 22 11 12

Vandalism 5 5 3

Miscellaneous 7 2 0

Total 163 120 96

13

KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWSInterview participants were prompted with a number of questions withthe goal of gathering information on their experiences working on issuesrelated to IPS PD operations, as well as their perspectives on thestrengths and weaknesses of the current IPS PD operating model. Whileparticipants were allowed flexibility to follow their own trains of thoughtand to introduce topics of significance related to their own work experi-ences, researchers were able to identify the following key areas from thekey informant discussions:

• Data and information sharing

• Roles and contributions of school-based officers

• Training

Following is a summary of key informant comments and perceptions ofthe IPS PD current system of operations

Issue area 1: Data and information sharingKey informants were asked about reporting processes and data collec-tion, as well as accessibility to information needed make law enforcementdecisions related to incidents occurring in and around IPS facilities.Interviewees indicated that few, if any, linkages exist between reportsand data collected by the IPS PD and the school student database thattracks attendance, truancy, incidents of disruptive behavior, academicprogress, and a number of other demographic variables. Budgetary andpersonnel information, IPS PD case records, investigations, and arrestdata appear to be readily available, while other data sets such as officertraining records and use of force reports are not yet fully developed.Utilization of these data sets would likely improve if more direct linkagesexisted between the reporting systems and data entry adjustments weremade in order to ensure consistent data coding.

Issue area 2: Roles and contributions of school-based officers One of the most consistent themes that emerged from the key informantinterviews with IPS PD personnel was the perception that assigning IPSofficers to specific school locations leads to a more positive working rela-tionship between students, school administrators, teachers, and the IPSPD. Officers indicated that this model fosters collaboration and commu-nication that may enable them to share firsthand knowledge of earlywarning signs among students, such as truancy and disruptive behavior,and work together to intervene and prevent more serious criminal inci-dents from occurring. Officers assigned full-time to specific school loca-tions also indicated that, in this environment, they often engage in activi-ties and contribute in ways not documented in the IPS PD case logand/or incident reports. IPS administrators also expressed concernsregarding IPS police officer transports of students, particularly thosetransports not related to a student arrest.

Issue area 3: TrainingThe IPS PD guidebook of standard operating procedures references min-imum training required to obtain and maintain an IPS police officer posi-tion. Among the key informant interviewees were IPS police officersresponsible for new and ongoing training who reported that a number ofofficers currently employed by the department serve as generalist instruc-

tors and are certified instructors for a variety of trainings. Additionally,IPS makes training provided by external organizations available to IPSofficers periodically throughout the year. A sample of trainings providedinclude:

• Indiana Law Enforcement Academy mandated in-service training

• School resource officer

• School safety specialists

• Firearms and physical tactics

• ALICE (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate)

• Crisis intervention team

• Restorative justice

• Run, hide, and fight

• Crisis prevention and intervention

• Emergency vehicle operations

• S.T.O.P.S. (how to safely conduct traffic stops)

• Expandable baton

• Emergency management/incident command

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSNote: In considering these conclusions and recommendations, note that thisstudy conducted by PPI was not comprehensive in nature and provides only abroad overview of current IPS PD administration and activities.

The IPS PD has built a strong framework of operations that addressesmany of the best practices identified in the literature review of schoolpolicing programs included in this report including a clearly defined mis-sion, goals, and standard operating procedures. The IPS PD also providesa system of data collection and reporting in a variety of areas includingcase/incident reports, investigations, arrests, and use of force reports.Additionally, IPS PD personnel appear to be dedicated, skilled public ser-vants concerned with the well-being of IPS students. They are commit-ted to providing a safe learning environment for students, teachers, andschool administrators. Most IPS PD personnel have provided many yearsof service to the district and the community.

As previously discussed, IPS police officers, similar to SROs serving inschool districts across the nation, are often required to play dual roles,navigating differing law enforcement and school cultures. SRO programsthat have successfully balanced these roles and priorities typically includethe following elements (discussed in more detail in the Literature Reviewsection of this report):

• Proper selection of officers

• Comprehensive, multifaceted training of officers

14

• SROs and school administrators need to have a clear understand-ing of their respective roles and responsibilities and to regularlyreview these.

• Resolving funding issues can ensure program sustainability. Forprograms to succeed, schools and police must be able to find thenecessary resources to support SRO programs

• Governance of the SRO program within in a well-defined frame-work is crucial. A comprehensive agreement between schools andlaw enforcement can help foster collaboration, communication,and ongoing evaluation.

The number of IPS police officers has decreased in recent years.Currently, IPS police officers are only assigned full-time to IPS highschool facilities. Key informants suggested that elementary and middleschool could also benefit from a more consistent IPS PD presence before,during, and after school hours. Additionally, with the many capable offi-cers certified in a variety of trainings, the IPS PD could benefit from amore systematic approach to data collection and management related tomaintaining training records (i.e., tracking trainings offered, trainingscompleted, officers certified in training, etc.). Utilization of IPS PD datasets would likely improve if more direct linkages existed between variousreporting systems and data entry adjustments were made in order toensure consistent data coding (this issue is discussed in more detail in therecommendations below).

A number of IPS police officers interviewed indicated that they are some-times asked to assume responsibilities outside of the scope of their job asschool police officers. This observation could be viewed as both astrength and a weakness of the current system. IPS police officersassigned to specific school locations did report that many of the contribu-tions they make during a typical day would not show up in the case logor investigations data. Officers report that their consistent presence in theschools enables them to actively engage with students on a daily basisand to sometimes informally intervene in ways that may deter studentsfrom making destructive choices and prevent some criminal incidentsfrom occurring. While these contributions may not fall within the boundsof the primary role of an IPS police officer, it is important to note officerswho were interviewed indicated they are willing to help where needed asthis is part of their role as a member of the school community. Additionaldata needs to be collected on the primary role and other perceived rolesof IPS police officers in order to determine if further delineation is need-ed to ensure officers spend adequate time on activities deemed as priori-ties of the IPS PD.

Some key informants expressed concerns regarding non-arrestee trans-ports of students. Many school districts across the U.S. have agreementsin place between law enforcement and school administrators that specifi-cally address the issue of school police transports of students. For exam-ple, the North Carolina Department of Public Safety provides resourcesfor SRO programs. One of these resources is a sample School ResourceOfficer Agreement (https://www.ncdps.gov/div/JJ/sro_agreement.pdf)that includes the following language related to transporting students:

• It is agreed that SROs shall not transport students in their vehiclesexcept:

o when the students are victims of a crime, under arrest, or someother emergency circumstances exist; and

o when students are suspended and sent home from school pursuantto school disciplinary actions if the student's parent or guardianhas refused or is unable to pick-up the child within a reasonabletime period and the student is disruptive/disorderly and his/hercontinued presence on campus is a threat to the safety and wel-fare of other students and school personnel.

• If circumstances require that the SRO transport a student, then theschool officials must provide a school official or employee of the samegender of the student to be transported to accompany the officer in thevehicle.

• If the student to be transported off campus is not under arrest, a victimof a crime, or violent or disruptive, the school administration shall pro-vide transportation for the student the SRO may accompany a schoolofficial in transporting a student.

• Student shall not be transported to any location unless it is determinedthat the student's parent, guardian or custodian is at the destination towhich the student is being transported. SROs shall not transport stu-dents in their personal vehicles.

• SROs shall notify the school principal before removing a student fromcampus.

Another potential area for improvement is the IPS PD complaint investi-gations process. The IPS PD does have a defined procedure for handlingcomplaints; however, some members of the community may be con-cerned by the strictly internal nature of complaint investigations. While itis true that the IPS PD is a relatively small police force with limited juris-diction and working primarily within IPS school facilities, it is reasonableto anticipate an average number of annual complaints against IPS officersthat will require investigation. In such cases, it may be beneficial for theIPS PD to explore options for conducting independent investigations andallowing for some level of civilian oversight of these investigations. Onepossible resource for assistance in this matter is the Indianapolis Citizens'Police Complaint Office (CPCO), an office, independent of theIndianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, created by city ordinance(Appendix B - Citizens' Police Complaint Office ordinance andbrochure). This office provides citizens of Indianapolis who believe theyhave been treated improperly by an IMPD officer the opportunity to havetheir complaints heard and investigated. Investigation findings arereviewed by the Citizens' Police Complaint Board, a twelve memberboard consisting of nine civilian voting members and three non-votingpolice officers.

15

DATA SOURCESIPS data referenced in this report, including IPS PD budget and personnel information, case/run log and incident reports, investigations, arrests, anduse of force reports, were provided by IPS Operations and IPS PD in December 2015 and January 2016.

REFERENCESCanady, M., Bernard, J., & Nease, J. (2012). To Protect & Educate: The School Resource Officer and the Prevention of Violence in Schools. National Associateof School Resource Officers.

Finn, P., Townsend, M., Shively, M., & Rich, T. (2005). A Guide to Developing, Maintaining, and Succeeding with Your School Resource Officer Program.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Raymond, B. (2010). Assigning police officers to schools. Problem-oriented guides for police: Response guides series no. 10. U.S. Department of Justice, Officeof Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/Responses/pdfs/school_police.pdf

Swazye, D.H., Buskovick, D. (2014). Law Enforcement in Minnesota Schools: A Statewide Survey of School Resource Officers.Minnesota Department ofPublic Safety Statistical Analysis Center.

Theriot, M. T. (2013). The Impact of School Resource Officer Interaction on Students’ Feelings about School and School Police. Crime & Delinquency. Advanceonline publication 1-24.

Thomas, B., Towvim, L., Rosiak, J., & Anderson, K. (2013). School Resource Officers: Steps to effective school-based law enforcement. National Center Brief.National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. (2003). A guide to developing, maintaining, and succeeding with your schoolresource officer program: Practices from the field for law enforcement and school administration. Retrieved from Virginia Department of Criminal JusticeServices. (2001). Second Annual Evaluation of DCJS Funded School Resource Officer Programs. Department of Criminal Justice Services CrimePrevention Center.

Weiler, S. C. & Cray, M. (2011). Police at School: A Brief History and Current Status of School Resource Officers. The Clearing House: A Journal ofEducational Strategies, Issues and Ideas.

RecommendationsAs stated previously, IPS PD has a strong framework of operations thataddresses many of the best practices identified in the literature review ofschool policing programs included in this report. It is also important toremember that the study conducted by PPI was not comprehensive innature and provides only a broad overview of current IPS PD administra-tion and activities. With this in mind, researchers utilized findings fromanalyses of IPS PD data, as well as information gathered in key informantinterviews, to develop the following set of general recommendations forimprovements to overall IPS PD operations:

• Perform a comprehensive review of IPS PD to determine if bestpractices and elements of successful SRO programs are in place.

• Conduct surveys of IPS police officers, school administrators andteachers, students, and parents to gain a better understanding ofcurrent perceptions related to IPS police officer roles and responsi-bilities in school facilities, the impacts of their presence in theschools, and areas where building stronger collaborative relation-ships may create new opportunities to address school safety.

• Develop a comprehensive agreement between IPS PD and schools(similar to the one recommended by the North CarolinaDepartment of Public Safety) including language related to thetransport of students.

• Create a process for officer training including a more clearlydefined process for maintaining the following information in anaccessible manner: 1) a list and schedule of training opportunities

(mandatory vs. optional), and 2) officer training records and train-ing certifications received.

• Develop a more systematic approach to records management/datacollection and data accessibility that could greatly enhance IPS PD’sability to evaluate the success of planned programs, initiatives, andactivities, and to determine areas for improvement over time.Current procedures and training in these processes should beadjusted to ensure more consistent data collection and coding.

• Additionally, IPS PD and its internal and external partners could ben-efit from the establishment of direct linkages between data sets (e.g.,link between IPS PD case/investigation/arrest records and studentdata related to truancy, attendance, and school disciplinary actions,and links between officer training certification records, IPS employeerecords, and IPS PD incident reports where such training is utilized).

• Work with the Indianapolis Citizens' Police Complaint Office, andsimilar entities in other cities, to develop a more transparent, fullyformed complaint investigations process that includes a civilianoversight component.

• Build stronger, sustainable partnerships both internally (i.e., schooladministrators, teachers, social workers, counselors, etc.) and exter-nally (i.e., local law enforcement agencies--IMPD, Marion CountySheriff, Marion Superior Court Juvenile Probation, and social serv-ice providers) in an effort to share resources and develop a multi-faceted approach to addressing student disciplinary, criminal jus-tice, and public safety issues in IPS facilities.

16

Indiana University Public Policy InstituteDecember 2015

Deputy Superintendent of Operations – Interview Questions

1. What specific goals and objectives do you have for the IPS police department? Mission?Strategic plan?

2. Tell us about the IPS police budget (primary costs of operation, capital expenses, salaries,benefit rates, etc.)

List of personnel salaries, benefits, position, hire date, gender, race, ageJob descriptions and qualifications for all IPS police department positionsBudget including capital expenses

3. Explain the current dispatch system. What is the cost to purchase and maintain the system(infrastructure, equipment upgrades, etc.)? How many dispatchers employed? Full or parttime?

4. What is the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and replacing police vehicles? Fully equipped?Frequency of replacement?

5. How many officers do you employ? Full time? Part time?

6. What are the job qualifications to be hired as an IPS SRO?

7. What type of training is provided to SROs? Any training that is specific to working in a schoolenvironment?

8. How many SROs are assigned to one school location on a full time basis?

9. Which schools have full time SROs assigned? How many officers at each location?

10. Is there data available from IPS Police RMS on dispatch reports and SRO responses to incidents?

Dispatch locationNature of incidentOfficer respondingResolution of incidentTime of dispatchTime of resolutionCalls per day, month, year, by officer

Note: Ideally, we would like to have 5 years to look at trends, but anything that is easilyaccessible would be helpful.

Appendix A: Interview Questionaires

17


11. Do schools keep records of SRO involvement in student behavioral problems and disciplinaryissues? Data available thru IPS Student Services/Assignment, Research Evaluation &Assessment?

Disciplinary incidents by schoolNature of incidentGrade, age, gender, race of studentSchool police involved (Y/N)Local police agency involved (Y/N)Probation/courts involved (Y/N)Resolution of incident

12. What process is used for complaints against SROs?

13. Is there data available on SRO complaints? Source of complaint, type of complaint, resolution ofcomplaint?

14. What type of data sharing exists, if any, with local police agencies (IMPD, MCS)?

15. Do you have any official contractual agreements or partnerships with local police agencies,private firms, non profits, etc.?

16. What do you think works well in the current system?

17. What are your biggest concerns about the current system?

18


Chief Financial Officer – Interview Questions

1. What specific goals and objectives do you have for the IPS police department? Mission?Strategic plan?

2. Tell us about the IPS police budget (primary costs of operation, capital expenses, salaries,benefit rates, etc.)

Data items needed:

List of personnel salaries, benefits, position, hire date, gender, race, ageJob descriptions and qualifications for all IPS police department positionsBudget including capital expenses, administrative costs, personnel, professionaldevelopment, etc.

3. Explain the current dispatch system. What is the cost to purchase and maintain the system(infrastructure, equipment upgrades, etc.)? How many dispatchers employed? Full or parttime?

4. What is the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and replacing police vehicles? Fully equipped?Frequency of replacement?

5. Are there any big costs that we are overlooking?

6. Do you have any official contractual agreements or partnerships with local police agencies,private firms, non profits, etc.?



19


IPS Chief of Police – Interview Questions

1. What specific goals and objectives do you have as a department? Mission? Strategic plan?

2. How many officers do you employ? Full time? Part time?

3. What are the job qualifications to be hired as an IPS SRO?

4. What type of training is provided to SROs? Any training that is specific to working in a schoolenvironment?

5. How many SROs are assigned to one school location on a full time basis?

6. Which schools have full time SROs assigned? How many officers at each location?

7. Among officers who are not assigned full time to one location, where and how do they spendmost of their time?

8. What is the average number of calls they respond to in a given day?

9. What is the nature of these calls?

10. Is there data available from your RMS on dispatch reports and SRO responses to incidents?

Note: Ideally, we would like to have 5 years to look at trends, but anything that is easilyaccessible would be helpful.

11. Do schools keep records of SRO involvement in student behavioral problems and disciplinaryissues? Data available thru IPS Student Services/Assignment, Research Evaluation &Assessment?

12. What process is used for complaints against SROs?

13. Is there data available on SRO complaints? Source of complaint, type of complaint, resolution ofcomplaint?

14. What type of data sharing exists, if any, with local police agencies (IMPD, MCS)?

15. Do you have any official agreements or partnerships with local police agencies, private firms,non profits, etc.?



20


IPS Police Officer – Interview Questions

1. What specific goals and objectives do you have as the IPS police department? Mission? Strategicplan?

2. Walk us through a typical work day for you.

Nature of calls/incidents you respond to?Average number of incidents?Reporting? Other Administrative duties?Interactions with students and school personnelIs a typical day different for officers assigned full time to one location? How?

3. Explain the current dispatch system. Do you think the system works well?

4. Are police vehicles adequate and appropriately equipped to enable you to effectively do yourjob?

5. Do you feel you’ve received adequate training to do your job? Professional developmentopportunities?

6. How frequently do you interact with local police agencies? Is this interaction helpful? Ismore/less interaction needed? Are you aware of any other IPS police partnerships with outsidegroups, private firms, non profits, etc.?

7. What are the biggest challenges you face in effectively doing your job?



21

CITY COUNTY GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 110, 2009

Proposal No. 246, 2009

A PROPOSAL FOR GENERAL ORDINANCE is amending the Revised Code relating to the citizens’ policecomplaint board.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND OF MARION COUNTY, INDIANA:

SECTION 1. Secs. 251 131, 251 132, 251 133, 251 134, 251 135, 251 136, 251 137 and 251 138 of theRevised Code of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County are hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 251 131. Citizens' police complaint office established.

(a)

The citizens' police complaint office is established as part of the department of publicsafety. Any complaint of a citizen against an officer of the Indianapolis MetropolitanPolice Department alleging that the officer used profane and abusive language orintentionally destroyed or damaged real or personal property, exceeded his/herauthority as a police officer, used unauthorized force, or acted in violation of theDepartment's rules and regulations or orders may be filed with the citizens' policecomplaint office. In addition, if a complainant alleges that intimidation tactics are beingused to impede the filing of a complaint, the complainant shall report this to thecomplaint office and a separate complaint will be filed regarding the new information.Each complaint shall be filed within sixty (60) days of the action giving rise to thecomplaint, shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the person making the complaint,who shall affirm under the penalties of perjury that the representations containedtherein are true. The complaint may be filed in person or by facsimile or through themail. Additionally, complaints may be filed after the expiration of the sixty day timeperiod where the person making the complaint was under a legal disability during thesixty day time period or where, upon a showing of good and sufficient cause and uponmajority vote of the citizens' police complaint board, a person is permitted to belatedlyfile a complaint.

(b)

Any individual personally aggrieved by the act or acts complained of may file acomplaint. A parent or guardian may file a complaint on behalf of a minor orincompetent individual. A member of the immediate family of a decedent may file acomplaint on behalf of the decedent. The complaint board may, upon two thirds (2/3)vote of its members, initiate an action.

(c)

Appendix B: Citizens’ Police Complaint Office Ordinace and Brochure

22

The complaint process shall be accessible to all citizens regardless of race, nationalorigin, ancestry, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, language,disability, or United States military service veteran status.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14)

Note—Formerly § 281 631.

Sec. 251 132. Citizens' police complaint board established; election process; terms.

(a)

The citizens' police complaint board is established, and shall be composed of nine (9)voting members, two (2) ex officio, nonvoting police advisory members, and one (1) exofficio, nonvoting rank and file consulting member to be selected as follows:(1)

All voting members shall be citizens who are residents of the consolidated city.No sworn law enforcement officer is eligible to serve as a voting member of theboard. Voting members may be selected from nominees submitted by the six (6)Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department district task forces which areconvened by the deputy chief of each district. Exception can be that in the eventa vacancy is not or cannot be filled in a timely manner per the provisions of thisdivision, the original appointing body may make the appointment using itsnormal process for making appointments. No district task force may nominatemore than three (3) candidates for appointment to the board. There must be atleast one (1) voting member from each Indianapolis Metropolitan PoliceDepartment district task force on the citizens' police complaint board, with nomore than three (3) from any one (1) district.

(2)

Six (6) of the members shall be appointed by the city county council. No morethan four (4) of these six (6) members may be of the same political party. Two(2) of these members shall serve for a one year term ending December 31,2008, two (2) of these members shall serve for a two year term endingDecember 31, 2009, and two (2) of these members shall serve for a three yearterm ending December 31, 2010, or until their successors are appointed andconfirmed, but for no longer than sixty (60) days beyond the expiration of theirterm.

(3)

Three (3) of the members shall be appointed by the mayor. One (1) of thesemembers shall serve for a one year term ending December 31, 2008, one (1) ofthese members shall serve for a two year term ending December 31, 2009, andone (1) of these members shall serve for a three year term ending December31, 2010, or until their successors are appointed and confirmed, but for nolonger than sixty (60) days beyond the expiration of their term.

23

(4)

Upon the expiration of any voting member's term, an appointment will be madeto his position by the original appointing body, for a term of three (3) years.Each member may be reappointed to a three year term, but may serve no morethan two (2) consecutive terms on the board, including the board established bysection 251 132 (repealed). If a member is unable to complete his/her term forany reason, the original appointing body shall appoint a new member tocomplete the term. Such new member shall then be eligible to be reappointedfor no more than one (1) additional full consecutive term, if he/she has servedeighteen (18) months or more of the original term, and no more than two (2)additional full consecutive terms, if he/she has served less than eighteen (18)months of the original term.

(5)

The two (2) ex officio, nonvoting police members of the board shall beappointed as follows: one (1) by the mayor; and, one (1) by the city countycouncil. Such members shall serve two year terms ending on December 31 ineven numbered years, and shall:a.

Have been members of the Indianapolis Police Department, the countypolice force of the Marion County Sheriff's Department, the IndianapolisMetropolitan Police Department, or any combination thereof, for morethan seven (7) years;

b.

Have participated in ethics training;c.

Have strong community relations experience;d.

Be of the rank of sergeant or below in rank, preferably a patrolman; ande.

Not serve more than two (2) consecutive terms on the board, includingthe board established by section 251 132 (repealed).

(6)

The one (1) ex officio, nonvoting rank and file consulting member shall beappointed by the president of the Fraternal Order of Police and shall serve aone year term ending on December 31 of the year of appointment.

(b)

All members shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing officials.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14)

Note—Formerly § 281 633.

24

Sec. 251 133. Complaint board officers, quorum, attendance, and training.

(a)

The voting members shall select one (1) voting member to serve as president of thecomplaint board.

(b)

Five (5) voting members of the complaint board shall constitute a quorum for thepurpose of conducting business, and five (5) voting members must vote in favor of anyitem before any action or disposition can be taken.

(c)

All voting and ex officio complaint board members must attend a minimum of seventyfive (75) percent of the meetings. The appointing authority shall replace any memberwho fails to meet this attendance requirement within sixty (60) days of written notice offailure to meet this attendance standard.

(d)

All voting members of the complaint board must participate in twenty (20) hours oftraining in police procedures, to be completed within six (6) months of theirappointment, and shall receive an additional twenty (20) hours of such training per year.In addition, each voting member shall be required to accompany an on duty officer ofthe Indianapolis metropolitan police department for a minimum of sixteen (16) hoursper year, and for a minimum of four (4) hours per occasion, in order to observe policeprocedures first hand. The appointing authority shall replace any member who fails tomeet these training requirements after written notice to such member of failure tomeet these standards.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14; G.O. 47, 2009, § 3)

Note—Formerly § 281 634

Sec. 251 134. Complaint board duties.

The citizens' police complaint board shall meet as often as necessary to consider allcomplaints which it deems appropriate to process and review, but no less than quarterly. Thecomplaint board shall set rules for its governance and shall establish its procedures forprocessing complaints and for ensuring notification to citizens of the status and disposition oftheir complaints.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14)


25

Sec. 251 135. Complaint office executive director; staff.

(a)

The director of the department of public safety after consultation with the Mayor shallappoint a full time executive director of the citizens' police complaint office, subject toapproval by the city county council. The executive director shall be supervised by andsubject to review and evaluation by the public safety director, with the advice andconsent of the members of the citizens' police complaint board. The duties of theexecutive director shall include:(1)

Managing the citizens' police complaint office, including its staff; and(2)

Enhancing communications and good will between the police and the citizenry.(b)

The executive director shall have the authority to contract with investigators and legalcounsel, if the city corporation counsel is not available, to aid in the investigation ofcomplaints filed with or processed by the office.

(c)

The executive director shall be in regular communication with the chief of theIndianapolis metropolitan police department and may make recommendations to thechief concerning matters of conduct and recurring issues that are processed by thecitizens' police complaint office. The executive director shall also provide periodicreports for publication in the department's annual report.

(d)

Staffing and budget recommendations for the citizens' police complaint office shall bemade by the public safety director in consultation with the executive director and thecitizens' police complaint board.

(e)

On a quarterly basis, the executive director shall forward a report of each complaintboard member's attendance and each voting member's training, as required by section251 133, to the member's appointing body, the public safety director, and the chief ofthe Indianapolis metropolitan police department.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14; G.O. 47, 2009, § 4)


Sec. 251 136. Complaint investigation and hearing procedures.

(a)

Upon the filing of a complaint, the executive director shall immediately send a copy ofthe complaint to the chief of the Indianapolis metropolitan police department or thechief's designee. In addition, the officer or officers alleged to be involved in the incident

26

shall be notified of the date of the incident, and given a copy of the complaint. After thefiling of a complaint, the complaint board shall table its own investigation for a period ofsixty (60) working days to allow the department to conduct its own investigation and toallow the chief to take appropriate action. The chief may request an extension of time tocomplete the investigation from the public safety director; however, if deemedappropriate or necessary, the complaint board may order the executive director toconduct an independent simultaneous investigation before the end of the investigationconducted by the department. Such action must be authorized by a three fourths (¾)vote of the entire complaint board.

(b)

When the investigation is returned to the citizens' police complaint office, the complaintboard shall review the investigation conducted by the department and the action takenby the chief, if any. The complaint board may dispose of the complaint by endorsing thefindings and action taken by the agency and shall notify the chief of this in writing. If thecomplaint board does not agree with the action taken by the chief or with the results ofthe investigation conducted by the agency, the complaint board may, by majority vote:(1)

Order the executive director to conduct an investigation into the allegations ofthe complaint; and/or

(2)

Conduct an informal administrative hearing on the complaint; and/or(3)

Order the executive director to engage in a process of informal mediation toattempt to resolve the complaint.

(c)

If the complaint board determines to hold a hearing, the complaint office shall givewritten notice to all parties and witnesses at least fifteen (15) days in advance of thescheduled hearing. All testimony at such hearing shall be given under oath and underpenalty of perjury.

(d)

Upon the completion of the investigation by the complaint office or after the hearing,the complaint board shall make a disposition regarding the complaint. The dispositionshall be one (1) or more of the following:(1)

Not sustained (when there is insufficient evidence to prove the allegation(s)made in the complaint by clear and convincing evidence);

(2)

Sustained (when there is sufficient evidence to prove the allegation(s) made inthe complaint by clear and convincing evidence);

(3)

27

Exonerated (when the allegation made in the complaint is false or not factual,or the conduct complained of was lawful and proper); and/or

(4)

Withdrawn (when the complainant requests that no further action be taken onthe case).

The disposition must be made within sixty (60) working days after the agency'sinvestigation is returned to the complaint office or after the conclusion of theinvestigation conducted by the executive director pursuant to subsection (a) ofthis section.

(e)

The findings and disposition of the complaint board shall be communicated to the chiefin writing within ten (10) days of the date of the disposition.

(f)

If the chief does not confirm the findings and disposition of the complaint board withinthirty (30) days of disposition, or if there is a conflict between the findings anddisposition of the complaint board and the findings of the chief, then the complaintboard may, upon a majority vote of its members, require mediation between the chiefand the executive director.

(g)

Any disciplinary action taken against an officer due to his or her involvement in anincident which resulted in a complaint being filed with the complaint office shall becommunicated to the complaint board for disclosure to the public.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14; G.O. 47, 2009, § 4)


Sec. 251 137. Subpoena powers.

For purposes of conducting an investigation or hearing, the complaint board shall havethe power to subpoena witnesses and documents, except those documents relating to ongoingcriminal investigations, including such public records as are deemed subject to disclosure underthe provisions of IC 5 14 3. The power of the complaint board to issue subpoenas shall beenforceable by the Marion County Circuit or Superior Court.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14)

Sec. 251 138. Access to board by officers; participation of officers.

(a)

Any officer subpoenaed to appear before the complaint board may be represented byan attorney.

(b)

28

Police officers shall have access to the complaint process to defend their actions, bothduring the investigatory and hearing processes.

(c)

Police officers shall be required to cooperate with the complaint board as aninvestigation is conducted, subject to their constitutional rights.

(G.O. 110, 2005, § 14; G.O. 2, 2008, § 14)


Indianapolis Public Schools

Review of IPS PoliceDepartment Operations and ActivitiesA research partnership between the Indianapolis Public Schoolsand the Indiana University Public Policy Institute

February 2016 • ISSUE 16-C02

© 2016 Indiana University Public Policy Institute School of Public and Environmental AffairsIndiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis334 N. Senate, Suite 300Indianapolis, Indiana 46204

review of ips police department operations and activities

Documents